Bart, No need for debate, just understanding a fish's cone of vision as he looks upwards towards the surface of the water. The 'footprint' you speak of is definitely all he sees at the EDGE of his cone of vision, i.e., off to the side as the floating bug comes into view. But as the insect, or your fly, get closer, more of the above-surface portion of the fly is visable to him. Thus, as the fish rises for the take and comes alongside to take the fly, it has a pretty good view of the entire fly. Next would come the discussion for what triggers the recognition, interest, rise, strike initiation, and final take. What makes a trout that spots your fly turn, rise, go into the strike, but then turn away at the last moment? The understanding of the combination of fish vision and 'strike image' for their prey items is the life-long challenge of all flytiers and flyfishers.
I'll direct email some photos of this cone of vision and the insect images. You'll see for yourself. DonO > I know I am going to cause a heavy debate with this one so here it goes. I > know when we tie in wings on or dry patterns it makes the fly look better and > in some cases I can see how it would make it float better. Here is the > question I am asking; trout do not see the top of the fly all they see is the > "footprint", so why put wings on them? The Adams has wings but the Flightless > Adams does not and it is just as effective as its older brother and tied the > same way with the same materials. So again I ask why wings? The Mosquito > pattern calls for wings and to be honest I have tied them with and without > wings and have had better luck with the wingless variety, and only use one > hackle in the process too. Hmmmmm, one material fly swap, sounds intresting. > Might have to host that one after the Pet Hair Swap. Folks I would like to > hear your thoughts and comments on this question. > > Thanks, > Bart >
